Surprise surprise, they lied.

President Joe Biden on Monday asked Congress to intervene and block a railroad strike before next month’s deadline in the stalled contract talks, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said lawmakers would take up legislation this week to impose the deal that unions agreed to in September.

“Let me be clear: a rail shutdown would devastate our economy,” Biden said in a statement. “Without freight rail, many U.S. industries would shut down.”

In a statement, Pelosi said: “We are reluctant to bypass the standard ratification process for the Tentative Agreement — but we must act to prevent a catastrophic nationwide rail strike, which would grind our economy to a halt.”

Pelosi said the House would not change the terms of the September agreement, which would challenge the Senate to approve the House bill without changes.

The September agreement that Biden and Pelosi are calling for is a slight improvement over what the board of arbitrators recommended in the summer. The September agreement added three unpaid days off a year for engineers and conductors to tend to medical appointments as long as they scheduled them at least 30 days in advance. The railroads also promised in September not to penalize workers who are hospitalized and to negotiate further with the unions after the contract is approved about improving the regular scheduling of days off.

Hundreds of business groups had been urging Congress and the President to step into the deadlocked contract talk and prevent a strike.

Both the unions and railroads have been lobbying Congress while contract talks continue. If Congress acts, it will end talks between the railroads and four rail unions that rejected their deals Biden helped broker before the original strike deadline in September. Eight other unions have approved their five-year deals with the railroads and are in the process of getting back pay for their workers for the 24% raises that are retroactive to 2020.

If Congress does what Biden suggests and imposes terms similar to what was agreed on in September, that will end the union’s push to add paid sick time. The four unions that have rejected their deals have been pressing for the railroads to add that benefit to help address workers’ quality of life concerns, but the railroads had refused to consider that.

Biden said that as a “a proud pro-labor president” he was reluctant to override the views of people who voted against the agreement. “But in this case — where the economic impact of a shutdown would hurt millions of other working people and families — I believe Congress must use its powers to adopt this deal.”

Biden’s remarks and Pelosi’s statement came after a coalition of more than 400 business groups sent a letter to congressional leaders Monday urging them to step into the stalled talks because of fears about the devastating potential impact of a strike that could force many businesses to shut down if they can’t get the rail deliveries they need. Commuter railroads and Amtrak would also be affected in a strike because many of them use tracks owned by the freight railroads.

The business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and National Retail Federation said even a short-term strike would have a tremendous impact and the economic pain would start to be felt even before the Dec. 9 strike deadline. They said the railroads would stop hauling hazardous chemicals, fertilizers and perishable goods up to a week beforehand to keep those products from being stranded somewhere along the tracks.

“A potential rail strike only adds to the headwinds facing the U.S. economy,” the businesses wrote. “A rail stoppage would immediately lead to supply shortages and higher prices. The cessation of Amtrak and commuter rail services would disrupt up to 7 million travelers a day. Many businesses would see their sales disrupted right in the middle of the critical holiday shopping season.”

A similar group of businesses sent another letter to Biden last month urging him to play a more active role in resolving the contract dispute.

On Monday, the Association of American Railroads trade group praised Biden’s action.

“No one benefits from a rail work stoppage — not our customers, not rail employees and not the American economy,” said AAR President and CEO Ian Jefferies. “Now is the appropriate time for Congress to pass legislation to implement the agreements already ratified by eight of the twelve unions.”

Business groups that have been pushing for Congress to settle this contract dispute praised Biden’s move.

“The Biden administration’s endorsement of congressional intervention affirms what America’s food, beverage, household and personal care manufacturers have been saying: Freight rail operations cannot shut down and imperil the availability and affordability of consumers’ everyday essentials,” said Tom Madrecki, vice president of supply chain for the Consumer Brands Association. “The consequences to consumers if a strike were to occur are too serious, especially amid continued supply chain challenges and disruptions.”

Clark Ballew, a spokesman for the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division, which represents track maintenance workers, said before Biden’s announcement that the union was “headed to D.C. this week to meet with lawmakers on the Hill from both parties. We have instructed our members to contact their federal lawmakers in the House and Senate for several weeks now.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Neil Bradley said Biden was correct in advocating for the deal already reached. “Congress must do what it has done 18 times before: intervene against a national rail strike,” Bradley said in a statement, and he called Congress enforcing the deal agreed to by railroads and union leaders the “only path to avoid crippling strike.”

The railroads, which include Union Pacific, BNSF, Norfolk Southern, CSX and Kansas City Southern, wanted any deal to closely follow the recommendations a special board of arbitrators that Biden appointed made this summer that called for the 24% raises and $5,000 in bonuses but didn’t resolve workers’ concerns about demanding schedules that make it hard to take a day off and other working conditions. That’s what Biden is calling on Congress to impose.

A police officer and a security guard stand outside of a boutique in the SoHo neighborhood of Manhattan, on April 11, 2022. Along with other parts of the city, SoHo witnessed a surge of shoplifting incidents compared to the prior year. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

United States 🇺🇸: How Organized Shoplifting Became a Billion-Dollar Industry

— By Aleks Phillips | Newsweek | Sunday August 20, 2023

Organized retail crime is on the rise, turbocharged by the pandemic and now costing the retail industry billions of dollars a year.

"Professional" gangs that are able to take large quantities of items are responsible for the biggest losses, experts say.

Consumers not only face higher prices but also localized shortages of certain products and potential store closures.

One industry insider explained the increased volume of theft as driven by higher margins available for stolen goods online.

In a May earnings report, Brian Cornell, CEO of Target, said that a loss of inventory is expected to reduce the company's profits by more than $500 million compared to the previous year. While he said there were "many potential sources," theft and organized retail crime were becoming "increasingly important drivers."

The corporate disclosure was a rare public recognition of the already large and increasing issue that theft is posing for retailers since the coronavirus pandemic. Industry insiders say that Target's figure is just the tip of the iceberg, and that shrink—a word for inventory loss—any chain stores were experiencing was largely attributable to retail crime.

"[Target is] saying it's $500 million worse than it was the year before, in 2022, and it seems like it was already bad in 2022," Jeremy Bowman, a contributing analyst at investment and consumer advice firm The Motley Fool, told Newsweek.

"It does seem like an issue that's come up in other earnings calls and commentary, certainly with drug stores," he said, citing Walgreens.

While one might think that the issue had arisen due to inflationary pressures pushing more people to shoplift, experts say that petty theft usually accounted for a small proportion of inventory loss. Large sums were being lost through organized retail crime (ORC)—something every consumer has likely experienced the effects of.

They portrayed a vicious cycle in which the pandemic had turbocharged a move towards online shopping, which itself incentivized a greater amount of retail crime, but that retail crime was now also incentivizing more consumers to shop online.

Newsweek reached out to several large retailers about the issue, including Target, Costco, Best Buy and T.J. Maxx, the latter of which declined to comment. Those that responded—Walgreens and Home Depot—confirmed it was a key issue for their companies but declined to offer figures on the scale of the losses they were experiencing.

'Professional' Gangs Stealing in Bulk

In May, a Lululemon store in Georgia made headlines after footage of staff confronting a group of three young men attempting to rob the store of bundles of clothing emerged. Two of the workers were later fired by the company over the incident; many retailers discourage staff from becoming physically involved with shoplifters.

As recently as last Sunday, a video of a "mob" raiding what was purported to be a Nordstrom in Los Angeles, grabbing clothes, handbags and suitcases went viral, earning millions of views.

These may be obvious incidents of ORC in its simplest sense, but not the costliest to retailers, according to Tony Sheppard, a Houston-based loss prevention consultant who spent 25 years working in security and organized retail crime units for several large retailers.

Instead, the incidents that hurt shops the most are the more complex crimes carried out by professional criminal gangs who "steal in bulk," he told Newsweek.

Sheppard said the proportions of the sources of shrink had changed drastically over the last 10 years, going from "internal theft"—employees taking items—being the most predominant cause of inventory loss to external theft by organized criminal gangs.

"External theft...was a small chunk; it was always there, but it was a smaller piece of the pie," Sheppard said. "What's happened is, is that with the increase in organized retail crime, the sheer volume of product that an individual or group can take in any given day has just gone crazy."

He added: "But then you see on the news, you have all these groups that are come in and they're haphazard. They're very unorganized. A lot of younger folks just coming in grabbing stuff running out and all that stuff.

"That's certainly an impact and no doubt about it—and those are the ones that potentially, unfortunately, can become violent, which is obviously the biggest concern. But they're a sliver of that [pie]," he said.

Shoplifting Drug Store NY! A man is escorted out of a drugstore by a police officer on October 26, 2021, in New York City. The National Retail Federation estimated the total cost of shrink in the United States to be $94.5 billion in 2021. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The senior director of loss prevention at ThinkLP estimated that established criminals can steal up to $10,000 in products from a store in some cases, and can often do so without customers noticing.

The established gangs are even able to get stolen products back into the supply chain, he said, and those operating at the highest levels usually knew in advance the quantity of a specific product that needed stealing and the price they would receive for it.

"There're fences that have cleaners, and they clean the product, or they remove stickers or stamps—anything that identifies it as being from a specific retailer—and then they repackage it," Sheppard said. "Then it gets mixed in with legitimate product and sometimes ends up back in the supply chain."

In September, the National Retail Federation estimated the total cost of shrink in the United States to be $94.5 billion in 2021, with the organization's Vice President Mark Mathews noting the "burgeoning threat" of ORC. In 2019, prior to the pandemic, the Centre for Retail Research put the total shrink at $43.3 billion, of which it said just over $4.8 billion was due to organized crime.

In its first-quarter earnings call on May 16, Richard McPhail, chief financial officer of Home Depot, revealed that the company's gross margin had decreased by eight basis points compared to the same time last year, which he said was "primarily driven by increased pressure from shrink."

Evelyn Fornes, a spokesperson for the company, told Newsweek she could not divulge financial details, but said that ORC was "an ongoing issue, and it has been on the rise over the last several years for many retailers."

She added that among the "most targeted items" by criminal gangs that the home improvement chain stocked were power tools, home automation products and wiring devices.

"Retail crime is one of the top challenges facing our industry today," Marty Maloney, a Walgreens spokesperson, told Newsweek. "We are focused on the safety of our patients, customers and team members. We continue to take preventative measures to safely deter theft and aim to deliver the best patient and customer experience."

Consumers Paying the Price

With margins being eaten away by theft, among other factors, it is only natural that some businesses may increase their prices. Bowman said rising costs were certainly an impact on consumers who were "already in an inflationary environment" following the pandemic.

But there are other, obvious signs of the effects of ORC on consumers. Both Bowman and Sheppard noted the various anti-theft devices shops employed to make stealing harder, such as security cases and "pushers," which allow only one product to be removed at a time, making stealing large quantities of items more difficult.

"A lot of these stores, you walk into them and buy something like razors or a popular item," Bowman said. "You see it behind plexiglass and it's locked up, and you've got to go find an employee to unlock it."

Sheppard said retailers aim to "make it difficult for the thief, but still convenient for the legitimate consumer" as using anti-theft devices made shopping harder and therefore "obviously has a detrimental impact to sales," especially when stores are short-staffed.

Target Ehelves Pushers! Empty shelves with "pushers," devices that allow only one product to be dispensed at a time, at a Target in San Ramon, California, on March 12, 2020. The security devices make it more difficult for people to shoplift. Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

As well as some customers being witness to or potentially caught up in instances of shoplifting, Sheppard explained that ORC gangs would usually hit several shops of the same type in the same area to increase the number of items they could steal in a single day, causing localized shortages of specific products.

In areas where ORC activity was high, he said, companies may choose to close stores, posing a "significant impact" on the convenience of going shopping, citing Walgreens' 2021 decision to shut five shops in San Francisco, California, due to shoplifting.

All three of these factors pushed more consumers to shop online.

In response to the mention of chain stores that had recently gone into administration, such as Bed Bath & Beyond, Sheppard said ORC was not the sole reason such companies were folding but "it's certainly a factor" in their collapse.

Generally, though, "it definitely does impact the retailer's bottom line...and they wouldn't be talking about it on the stock calls if it wasn't a significant problem," he added.

The Vicious Cycle

As is borne out by the apparent more-than-doubling of shrink between 2019 and 2022, ORC has surged during and in the aftermath of the pandemic. While Sheppard expected there to be more petty theft as a consequence of a rising cost of living, he said the predominant effect of the global crisis on the crime that retailers are subject to was pushing more sales online.

"Covid caused a significant spike in ORC in the U.S., and not necessarily for the reasons you may think as far as people being out of work," he explained. "A lot of customers that would normally never shop online, were forced to shop online, because they wouldn't leave their house...or they wanted something that wasn't non-essential."

"So you had a massive uptick in people making online purchases, which is where a lot of the stolen product ends up," Sheppard added. "So, therefore, the activity skyrocketed to meet the demand from the consumer."

He said ORC had been "steadily increasing prior to that," but that a "perfect storm" of online demand and concerns over liability for injuries sustained during shoplifting encounters had made it go "off the rails."

Walgreens Closing San Francisco! A man walks by a Walgreens store on October 13, 2021, in San Francisco, California. Walgreens closed five of its San Francisco stores due to organized retail shoplifting. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Whereas in the past someone stealing items for resale would have to do so in person and likely for a significant markdown on the label price, criminals can sell their stolen wares online much closer to the original price—and will often be taken up on the offer by consumers looking for a bargain.

"Your return on investment for being a shoplifter—especially a professional shoplifter who does it all the time—is way more lucrative than it used to be," Sheppard said. "It's much easier to resell the product, and the profit margin you're getting per item has just skyrocketed because of online platforms."

To make matters worse, ORC drives more consumers to shop online through the impacts on in-store shoppers it causes—localized stock issues, in particular—in turn giving resellers of stolen goods even more customers.

"It kind of feeds itself," Sheppard said.

"In the longer term, broader sense I think this will just push more businesses to the online channel," Bowman said. "If you think of a company like Amazon, they don't really have stores. I imagine there are some instances of employee theft, but you're not going to have an organized crime ring with exposure to the public in the way brick-and-mortar stores do."

He added, though, that stolen goods being sold online was "a hard thing for individual consumers to fight [with] their own hands" as "even a company the size of Amazon has problems with counterfeit goods on their site" that prompted it in April to set up a program to combat instances on its platform.

Fornes called on Congress and individual states to properly enforce the INFORM Consumers Act, which came into effect in late June and gives online transactions greater transparency, and create "capacity for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute cases through funding federal, state and local task forces."

National Retail Federation releases new numbers on back-to-school spending

National Retail Federation releases new numbers on back-to-school spending

National Retail Federation releases new numbers on back-to-school spending Source link

View On WordPress

How Google’s trial secrecy lets it control the coverage

I'm coming to Minneapolis! Oct 15: Presenting The Internet Con at Moon Palace Books. Oct 16: Keynoting the 26th ACM Conference On Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing.

"Corporate crime" is practically an oxymoron in America. While it's true that the single most consequential and profligate theft in America is wage theft, its mechanisms are so obscure and, well, dull that it's easy to sell us on the false impression that the real problem is shoplifting:

https://newrepublic.com/post/175343/wage-theft-versus-shoplifting-crime

Corporate crime is often hidden behind Dana Clare's Shield Of Boringness, cloaked in euphemisms like "risk and compliance" or that old favorite, "white collar crime":

https://pluralistic.net/2021/12/07/solar-panel-for-a-sex-machine/#a-single-proposition

And corporate crime has a kind of performative complexity. The crimes come to us wreathed in specialized jargon and technical terminology that make them hard to discern. Which is wild, because corporate crimes occur on a scale that other crimes – even those committed by organized crime – can't hope to match:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/12/no-criminals-no-crimes/#get-out-of-jail-free-card

But anything that can't go on forever eventually stops. After decades of official tolerance (and even encouragement), corporate criminals are finally in the crosshairs of federal enforcers. Take National Labor Relations Board general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo's ruling in Cemex: when a company takes an illegal action to affect the outcome of a union election, the consequence is now automatic recognition of the union:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/06/goons-ginks-and-company-finks/#if-blood-be-the-price-of-your-cursed-wealth

That's a huge deal. Before, a boss could fire union organizers and intimidate workers, scuttle the union election, and then, months or years later, pay a fine and some back-wages…and the union would be smashed.

The scale of corporate crime is directly proportional to the scale of corporations themselves. Big companies aren't (necessarily) led by worse people, but even small sins committed by the very largest companies can affect millions of lives.

That's why antitrust is so key to fighting corporate crime. To make corporate crimes less harmful, we must keep companies from attaining harmful scale. Big companies aren't just too big to fail and too big to jail – they're also too big for peaceful coexistence with a society of laws.

The revival of antitrust enforcement is such a breath of fresh air, but it's also fighting headwinds. For one thing, there's 40 years of bad precedent from the nightmare years of pro-monopoly Reaganomics to overturn:

https://pluralistic.net/ApexPredator

It's not just precedents in the outcomes of trials, either. Trial procedure has also been remade to favor corporations, with judges helping companies stack the deck in their own favor. The biggest factor here is secrecy: blocking recording devices from courts, refusing to livestream the proceedings, allowing accused corporate criminals to clear the courtroom when their executives take the stand, and redacting or suppressing the exhibits:

https://prospect.org/power/2023-09-27-redacted-case-against-amazon/

When a corporation can hide evidence and testimony from the public and the press, it gains broad latitude to dispute critics, including government enforcers, based on evidence that no one is allowed to see, or, in many cases, even describe. Take Project Nessie, the program that the FTC claims Amazon used to compel third-party sellers to hike prices across many categories of goods:

https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/amazon-used-secret-project-nessie-algorithm-to-raise-prices-6c593706

Amazon told the press that the FTC has "grossly mischaracterize[d]" Project Nessie. The DoJ disagrees, but it can't say why, because the Project Nessie files it based its accusations on have been redacted, at Amazon's insistence. Rather than rebutting Amazon's claim, FTC spokesman Douglas Farrar could only say "We once again call on Amazon to move swiftly to remove the redactions and allow the American public to see the full scope of what we allege are their illegal monopolistic practices."

It's quite a devastating gambit: when critics and prosecutors make specific allegations about corporate crimes, the corporation gets to tell journalists, "No, that's wrong, but you're not allowed to see the reason we say it's wrong."

It's a way to work the refs, to get journalists – or their editors – to wreathe bold claims in endless hedging language, or to avoid reporting on the most shocking allegations altogether. This, in turn, keeps corporate trials out of the public eye, which reassures judges that they can defer to further corporate demands for opacity without facing an outcry.

That's a tactic that serves Google well. When the company was dragged into court by the DoJ Antitrust Division, it demanded – and received – a veil of secrecy that is especially ironic given the company's promise "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful":

https://usvgoogle.org/trial-update-9-22

While this veil has parted somewhat, it is still intact enough to allow the company to work the refs and kill disfavorable reporting from the trial. Last week, Megan Gray – ex-FTC, ex-DuckDuckGo – published an editorial in Wired reporting on her impression of an explosive moment in the Google trial:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/03/not-feeling-lucky/#fundamental-laws-of-economics

According to Gray, Google had run a program to mess with the "semantic matching" on queries, silently appending terms to users' searches that caused them to return more ads – and worse results. This generated more revenue for Google, at the expense of advertisers who got billed to serve ads that didn't even match user queries.

Google forcefully disputed this claim:

https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1709726778170786297

They contacted Gray's editors at Wired, but declined to release all the exhibits and testimony that Gray used to form her conclusions about Google's conduct; instead, they provided a subset of the relevant materials, which cast doubt on Gray's accusations.

Wired removed Gray's piece, with an unsigned notice that "WIRED editorial leadership has determined that the story does not meet our editorial standards. It has been removed":

https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-results/

But Gray stands by her piece. She admits that she might have gotten some of the fine details wrong, but that these were not material to the overall point of her story, that Google manipulated search queries to serve more ads at the expense of the quality of the results:

https://twitter.com/megangrA/status/1711035354134794529

She says that the piece could and should have been amended to reflect these fine-grained corrections, but that in the absence of a full record of the testimony and exhibits, it was impossible for her to prove to her editors that her piece was substantively correct.

I reviewed the limited evidence that Google permitted to be released and I find her defense compelling. Perhaps you don't. But the only way we can factually resolve this dispute is for Google to release the materials that they claim will exonerate them. And they won't, though this is fully within their power.

I've seen this playbook before. During the early months of the pandemic, a billionaire who owned a notorious cyberwarfare company used UK libel threats to erase this fact from the internet – including my own reporting – on the grounds that the underlying research made small, non-material errors in characterizing a hellishly complex financial Rube Goldberg machine that was, in my opinion, deliberately designed to confuse investigators.

Like the corporate crimes revealed in the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers, the gambit is complicated, but it's not sophisticated:

Make everything as complicated as possible;

Make everything as secret as possible;

Dismiss any accusations by claiming errors in the account of the deliberately complex arrangements, which can't be rectified because the relevant materials are a secret.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/09/working-the-refs/#but-id-have-to-kill-you

My next novel is The Lost Cause, a hopeful novel of the climate emergency. Amazon won't sell the audiobook, so I made my own and I'm pre-selling it on Kickstarter!

Image: Jason Rosenberg (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/underpants/12069086054/

CC BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

--

Japanexperterna.se (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/japanexperterna/15251188384/

CC BY-SA 2.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Reuters: "Home Depot Ban on Worker's Black Lives Matter Apron Was Illegal, US Agency Rules."

From the article:

Feb 21 (Reuters) - Home Depot violated U.S. labor law by barring a retail worker from wearing an apron that said "BLM" in support of the Black Lives Matter movement, a federal labor board ruled on Wednesday. The National Labor Relations Board in a 3-1 decision said the worker's refusal to remove the writing from the apron was protected by federal law because it came amid complaints about racial discrimination by employees at the New Brighton, Minnesota store. The worker, Antonio Morales, who uses they/them pronouns, in 2021 was told not to return to work with the altered apron and quit in response. Morales and other workers at the store had previously raised concerns about racial harassment and discrimination, and wearing the BLM apron was a "logical outgrowth" of those complaints, the NLRB said. The labor board found that Home Depot broke the law by forcing Morales to quit because they had advocated for better working conditions, which is considered protected conduct under U.S. labor law. The board said Morales did not have to explicitly link the apron to a workplace protest because, in light of the complaints about discrimination, "the BLM symbol accumulated meaning relevant to working conditions there." Home Depot was ordered to reinstate Morales and compensate them for lost pay and benefits. The company, which can appeal the decision to a federal appeals court, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Read the rest here.

Ashli Streeter said Stevens Transport did not hire her because it had no women to train her. Credit...Montinique Monroe for The New York Times

The trucking industry has complained for years that there is a dire shortage of workers willing to drive big rigs. But some women say many trucking companies have made it effectively impossible for them to get those jobs. Trucking companies often refuse to hire women if the businesses do not have women available to train them. And because fewer than 5 percent of truck drivers in the United States are women, there are few female trainers to go around. The same-sex training policies are common across the industry, truckers and legal experts say, even though a federal judge ruled in 2014 that it was unlawful for a trucking company to require that female job candidates be paired only with female trainers. Ashli Streeter of Killeen, Texas, said she had borrowed $7,000 to attend a truck driving school and earn her commercial driving license in hopes of landing a job that would pay more than the warehouse work she had done. But she said Stevens Transport, a Dallas-based company, had told her that she couldn’t be hired because the business had no women to train her. Other trucking companies turned her down for the same reason. “I got licensed, and I clearly could drive,” Ms. Streeter said. “It was disheartening.” Ms. Streeter and two other women filed a complaint against Stevens Transport with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Thursday, contending that the company’s same-sex training policy unfairly denied them driving jobs. The commission investigates allegations made against employers, and, if it determines a violation has occurred, it may bring its own lawsuit. The commission had brought the lawsuit that resulted in the 2014 federal court decision against similar policies at another trucking company, Prime. Critics of the industry said the persistence of same-sex training nearly a decade after that ruling, which did not set national legal precedent, was evidence that trucking companies had not done enough to hire women who could help solve their labor woes. “It’s frustrating to see that we have not evolved at all,” said Desiree Wood, a trucker who is the president and founder of Real Women in Trucking, a nonprofit. Ms. Wood’s group is joining the three women in their E.E.O.C. complaint against Stevens, which was filed by Peter Romer-Friedman, a labor lawyer in Washington, and the National Women’s Law Center. Companies that insist on using women to train female applicants generally do so because they want to avoid claims of sexual harassment. Trainers typically spend weeks alone with trainees on the road, where the two often have to sleep in the same cab. Critics of same-sex training acknowledge that sexual harassment is a problem, but they say trucking companies should address it with better vetting and anti-harassment programs. Employers could reduce the risk of harassment by paying for trainees to sleep in a hotel room, which some companies already do. Women made up 4.8 percent of the 1.37 million truck drivers in the United States in 2021, according to the most recent government statistics, up from 4 percent a decade earlier. Long-haul truck driving can be a demanding job. Drivers are away from home for days. Yet some women say they are attracted to it because it can pay around $50,000 a year, with experienced drivers making a lot more. Truck driving generally pays more than many other jobs that don’t require a college degree, including those in retail stores, warehouses or child care centers.

The infrastructure act of 2021 required the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to set up an advisory board to support women pursuing trucking careers and identify practices that keep women out of the profession. Robin Hutcheson, the administrator of the agency, said requiring same-sex training would appear to be a barrier to entry. “If that is happening, that would be something that we would want to take a look at,” she said in an interview. Ms. Streeter, a mother of three, said she had applied to Stevens because it hired people straight out of trucking school. She told Stevens representatives that she was willing to be trained by a man, but to no avail. Bruce Dean, general counsel at Stevens, denied the allegations in the suit. “The fundamental premise in the charge — that Stevens Transport Inc. only allows women trainers to train women trainees — is false,” he said in a statement, adding that the company “has had a cross-gender training program, where both men and women trainers train female trainees, for decades.” Some legal experts said that, although same-sex training was ruled unlawful in only one federal court, trucking companies would struggle to defend such policies before other judges. Under federal employment discrimination law, employers can seek special legal exemptions to treat women differently from men, but courts have granted them very rarely. “Basically, what the law says is that a company needs to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time,” said Deborah Brake, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in employment and gender law. “They need to be able to give women equal employment opportunities and prevent and remedy sexual harassment.” Ms. Streeter said she had made meager earnings from infrequent truck driving gigs while hoping to get a position at Stevens. Later this month, she will become a driver in the trucking fleet of a large retailer. Kim Howard, one of the other women who filed the E.E.O.C. complaint against Stevens, said she was attracted to truck driving by the prospect of a steady wage after working for decades as an actor in New York. “It was very much a blow,” she said of being rejected because of the training policy. “I honestly don’t know how I financially made it through.” Ms. Howard, who is now employed at another trucking company, said she had worked briefly at a company where she was trained by two men who treated her well. “It’s quite possible for a woman to be trained by a man, and a man to be a professional about what the job is,” she said. Other female drivers said they had been mistreated by male trainers who could be relentlessly dismissive and sometimes refused to teach them important skills, like reversing a truck with a large trailer attached. Rowan Kannard, a truck driver from Wisconsin who is not involved in the complaint against Stevens, said a male trainer had spent little time training her on a run to California in 2019. At a truck stop where she felt unsafe, Ms. Kannard said, the trainer demanded that she leave the cab — and then locked her out. She asked to stop the training and was flown back to Wisconsin. Yet she said she did not believe that same-sex training for women was necessary. “Some of these men that are training, they should probably go through a course.” Click the article to read more. The author is Peter Eavis.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., "is at long last acknowledging that ObamaCare has increased healthcare prices" and created other unintentional consequences, the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote Friday.

Warren, who has long supported the Affordable Care Act, the official name for ObamaCare, has recently come to an "epiphany" about "industry consolidation and price increases caused by the healthcare law," per The Journal.

A letter to the Health and Human Services Department inspector general was aimed at determining if "vertically-integrated health care companies are hiking prescription drug costs" and are "evading federal regulations."

In a bipartisan letter, she and Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., complained "that the nation’s largest health insurers are dodging ObamaCare’s medical loss ratio (MLR)," according to The Journal. 

As Warren describes in the letter, health insurers have exploited the situation, making for "sky-high prescription drug costs and excessive corporate profits."

"In functioning markets, generic drugs cost 80 to 85 percent less than their name-brand equivalents, giving patients much-needed relief from high drug costs and saving taxpayer dollars," Warren wrote. "But patients – including patients in public health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid – who either use or are compelled to use vertically integrated specialty pharmacies are not seeing this relief."

The senators continued: "By owning every link in the chain, a conglomerate like UnitedHealth Group – which includes an insurer, a PBM, a pharmacy, and physician practices – can send inflated medical payments to its pharmacy. Then, by realizing those payments on the pharmacy side – the side that charges for care – rather than the insurance side, the insurance line of business appears to be in compliance with MLR requirements, while keeping more money for itself." 

The Journal explained that despite Democrats arguing that the MLR would help patients, "the rule has spurred insurers to merge with or acquire pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), retail and specialty pharmacies, and healthcare providers." 

"This has made healthcare spending less transparent since insurers can shift profits to their affiliates by increasing reimbursements," the board wrote. 

Warren has voted against ObamaCare repeal efforts over the years but also pushed for a "Medicare for All" proposal when she ran for president in 2020.

Warren's office and HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Conservation groups in Miami have notified the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today that they intend to sue the agencies for failing to protect the federally endangered Florida bonneted bat, Miami tiger beetle, Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak and other imperiled species from the destructive effects of the Miami Wilds water park and retail development in south Florida.

Miami Wilds plans to build a 27.5-acre water park, retail area, hotel and more than 40 acres of associated parking lots. Miami-Dade County approved a lease agreement for the Miami Wilds site on June 22, 2022.

The notice was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Bat Conservation International, Miami Blue Chapter of the North American Butterfly Association, and Tropical Audubon Society (17th of August, 2022)

I will link the organizations taking action below - visibility of this issue helps their cause, as does donating/volunteering/seeing how else you can contribute:

Center for Biological Diversity

Bat Conservation International

Miami Blue Chapter of the North American Butterfly Association

Tropical Audubon Society

The National Retail Federation (NRF) — the top lobbying group for retail corporations in Washington, DC — recently admitted that its data about "organized retail crime" causing huge losses was significantly off base.

In 2021, the group initially stated that out of the approximately $94.5 billion in store merchandise losses that year, roughly half was attributed to "organized" shoplifting campaigns. NRF head of asset protection and retail operations David Johnston told CNN in November that retail chains were "seeing unprecedented levels of theft coupled with rampant crime in their stores, and the situation is only becoming more dire."

However, the New York Times reported Friday that the NRF's figure of 50% of losses attributed to organized shoplifting was actually closer to 5%.

"It would be a bit like the census claiming that nearly half of the U.S. population lives in the state of Rhode Island," Trevor Wagener, the chief economist at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, told the Times.

Retailers themselves admitted that they overestimated losses to shoplifting. In January of 2022, drugstore chain Walgreens said its closure of five stores in the San Francisco area in 2021 was due to a spike in organized shoplifting. But then-Chief Financial Officer James Kehoe said in January of 2023 that its shrink rate (losses attributed to shoplifting, theft and fraud) was just 2.5% in the first fourth quarter.

"Maybe we cried too much last year," Kehoe said.

Civil rights attorney and media critic Alec Karakatsanis told the Times that media outlets failed to critically examine retailers' claims about shoplifting, and were "used as a tool by certain vested interests to gin up a lot of fear about this issue."

"In fact, it was pretty clear all along that the facts didn’t add up," Karakatsanis said.

Karakatsanis asserted that retail chains used the media panic over organized shoplifting — in which groups of shoppers allegedly steal items from brick-and-mortar stores and sell items online for higher prices — to lobby for tighter regulations on their competitors in the e-commerce industry.

The panic resulted in concrete policy changes from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Californa Governor Gavin Newsom (D) called for stricter prosecution of shoplifters in 2021, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill into law that same year imposing stricter penalties on retail theft.

Just a reminder that the "businesses are all closing down because of crime" is a Myth.

It is corporate PR by executives who get bit in the ass by COVID screwing with their gentrification projections. As an example:

Target just closed its location on 117th street "because of all the stealing."

Target at e 116th had about 201 crimes in 2022. Robberies, larcenies, shoplifting, all totaled 201 instances via NYPD crime data. The Target on 86th and 3rd had 380-ish incidents in 2022 and isn't being closed. Target is also opening up another location within a mile at 125th and Lenox.

That shopping plaza on e 117th actually has lower crime rates.

The National Retailer Federation even came out recently and said they're not seeing any data to show any substantive increase in theft loss.

CVS is decrying "losses from theft" while spending 10 billion on stock buybacks so executives would get massive bonuses. I wonder where all their money is going.

It's telling that these narratives only exist for cities in Democrat-aligned areas or states, like NYC or California while Republican-aligned cities and states have the most theft by a mile. Jacksonville Florida's property crime rate is 34.45% higher than NYC's. Memphis Tenneessee's property crime rate is 276.75% of NYC's.

It's literal corporate, right-wing propaganda that executives throw out there to excuse their own shitty business decisions and distract from how they're continuing to manipulate the stock market to make themselves richer.

'Unprecedented Levels of Theft Coupled With Rampant Crime' Caused $112 Billion in Loss For Retailers Last Year | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald

Democrat run shit- holes are driving these numbers

On Friday, the US Chamber of Commerce issued an open letter to President Joe Biden imploring him to appoint a “mediator” and force through a tentative agreement between the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) and the over 22,000 dockworkers in the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU).

In the letter addressed to Biden and acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su, Suzanne P. Clark, the CEO and president of the Chamber, wrote that the group was “very concerned by the premeditated and disruptive service actions that are slowing operations at several major ports along the West Coast.”

Beginning last week, and continuing through this writing, dockworkers at several West Coast ports have refused to show up to work after it was revealed that the PMA was proposing an across-the-board $1.56 “raise” for dockworkers, well below the rate of inflation. The fury of rank-and-file workers across all three tiers, A, B, and casual, prompted the ILWU, worried that workers would take matters into their own hands, to unofficially authorize job actions that led to the near-shutdown of major ports and terminals.

Dockworkers have been laboring on 29 ports, from Washington to California, without a contract since last July, while the PMA and ILWU have been negotiating in secret for 13 months. These secret negotiations, Andy, a Los Angeles-area dockworker told the WSWS, have left him and his coworkers “frustrated...we don’t know what is going on. We have no say in anything, it is outrageous.”

Commenting on the long hours that dockworkers put in during the pandemic, and the “thanks” they have received so far from the PMA, Andy said, “Me and a lot of other people got over 2,000 hours. We didn’t step out of line, we did everything they asked. The PMA are talking about not giving us enough retroactive pay, that insulting $1.56 pay increase.”

On Friday, June 9, the PMA issued another statement confirming that while job actions had lessened at the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland, the “Ports of Seattle and Tacoma continue to suffer significant slowdowns as a result of targeted ILWU actions.”

The PMA asserted that the ILWU was refusing to dispatch lashers, leaving ships idle and resulting in “a backup of incoming vessels.”

Terrified at the prospect that these limited actions could spiral into a “serious work stoppage at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach” that “would be devastating to...businesses,” Chamber Commerce CEO Clark, on behalf of Wall Street, urged Biden “to appoint an independent mediator to help the parties reach a voluntary agreement.” Clarke wrote that this “step is necessary to avoid potentially billions of dollars in economic damage to the American economy.”

Raising the prospect of invoking the anti-union Taft-Hartley law against dockworkers, and possibly deploying soldiers in the case of a strike, Clarke added that Biden should “consider additional steps that may be necessary in the event of a widespread work stoppage.”

This is the third statement issued by a major big business lobby over the last week calling on Biden to intervene in the dockworker negotiations, on the side of capital. On Monday, representatives from the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation also called on the White House to impose a contract on dockworkers.

While Biden himself has not directly commented, his actions last year show that the self-declared most “pro-union” president is more than willing to run roughshod over workers’ democratic rights in order to satiate Wall Street’s unquenchable hunger for profits. Furthermore, high-level officials, in his administration and outside of it, have made clear that the White House has been actively involved in the dockworker negotiations from the outset.

In an interview on CNBC on Thursday, Gene Seroka, the executive director at the Port of Los Angeles, confirmed that the same labor officials who blocked a railroad strike last year, and subsequently dictatorially forced through a rotten pro-company agreement rail workers had already rejected, were again intervening in the contract talks.

“Here’s what’s been happening,” Seroka said. “Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su has been working with both sides, individually and collectively, trying to keep these talks moving.” Su was the deputy labor secretary under Marty Walsh last year during the railroad betrayal.

“Julie and her staff have been working tirelessly, not putting out press releases or coming on TV. They are talking with both sides to keep this progress moving,” Seroka continued, adding, “From the secretary of labor’s seat, this continues to be a top priority.”

While he claimed not to know the exact details, Seroka confirmed that the major conflicts in the contract remain pay and “robotics.” Seroka noted that during the pandemic, “Dockworkers were out on the job six days a week.” The ILWU has confirmed that at least 43 members died of COVID-19, no doubt a significant undercount.

While dockworkers were risking infection and death to move cargo, the companies have pulled in record profits. Shipping giant Maersk, one of several companies represented by the PMA, posted $30.9 billion in profit in 2022. And while shipping rates have declined from their 2021 highs, last month Maesrk still reported a first-quarter profit just under $4 billion.

In interviews with WSWS reporters on Thursday, Los Angeles area dockworkers reflected on the precarious and dangerous character of their work, the hated tier system, which was negotiated in by former ILWU President Harry Bridges in the 1960 Mechanization and Modernization agreement, and the need for dockworkers to unite as a class against the major corporations.

A casual worker said that she has been “a casual for 19 years. I need four more years to make it to Class A. It’s been a long, long time, and we don’t have any rights. My brother is an A man, we were always taught in our family to get union jobs, but things are very tough these days. It’s stressful. I had an accident last month because I had a seizure, which was caused because I was so angry with my boss.”

Commenting on the anti-Asian sentiment that has been whipped up by both big business parties as part of the war drive against China, the dockworker said she was “against all this anti-Asian violence and hate. They are trying to blame Asian people for all the problems, trying to pit worker against worker. We are all facing the same problems.”

A longshoreman who has been a Class A man for 15 years noted that the ILWU along the West Coast had yet to conduct a strike authorization vote nearly a year after the contract expired. “The Canadian longshoremen are having strike authorization votes [Thursday] and Friday. That’s important because the PMA was trying to use the Canadian access from their ports to railways to Chicago and back East to reroute shipping since West Coast longshore have been carrying out job actions here.”

Commenting on the miserly $1.56 raise, a pay cut in real terms, given that inflation in California is over 7 percent, he said, “For us here, I wasn’t happy about that tiny raise the PMA is offering us.”

In a message to other dockworkers, Andy warned about the ongoing conspiracy between Biden, the ILWU and the PMA. “They are all just oligarchs. Biden is doing the same thing Trump would do. The same thing George Bush would do.”

“It really is an international struggle,” he added, “That’s why the internationalism is so important. I mean if me, and all the other dockworkers in the world, got together and decided we weren’t going to move cargo until our demands were met? That would be amazing.”

The fight to link up workers in a joint struggle against the major international carriers requires the development of rank-and-file committees, controlled by the workers and independent of the ILWU union bureaucracy.

Workers cannot let the initiative remain in the hands of the ruling class and its state! It is urgent that workers begin communicating among themselves and coordinating actions to counter the conspiracy between the companies and the Biden administration, assisted by the union apparatus.

Amazon was accused of violating federal law multiple times to obstruct unionization efforts at a warehouse near Albany, New York, last year, according to a new complaint filed by a regional director at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), first reported by Bloomberg. The complaint, filed yesterday (Aug. 21), reportedly accuses the retail giant of illegally firing an organizer prior to a union ballot last year, calling the police on employees, barring discussion of unions at the workplace, and seeking to limit employee interaction at the warehouse before and after hours to thwart organizing.

[Read the rest]